PrepTest 134, Section 3, Question 11
Sigerson argues that the city should adopt ethical(36 more words not shown)
The reasoning in the argument(11 more words not shown)
- Aconfuses a sufficient(15 more words not shown)
- Brejects a proposal(12 more words not shown)
- Cfails to adequately(11 more words not shown)
- Drejects a proposal(15 more words not shown)
- Eoverlooks the fact(13 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Maybe Sigerson wants to change a system he's participated in.
The proposal has an understandable purpose. Imagine a construction company donating to a politician who will later help award city construction contracts. That creates a concern that political contributions could influence where the contracts go. A rule against those contributions could address that concern.
The author doesn't examine whether the rule would work. Instead, the author points to Sigerson's past acceptance of those contributions and calls the proposal dishonest. But what if Sigerson has come to see a problem with the arrangement? His experience could be exactly why he now wants it changed.
What we’re looking for
Even an accusation of hypocrisy would be different from proof of dishonesty. We don't know that he secretly plans to ignore the rule or that his proposed reform is insincere. For the flaw question, look for an answer showing why his past behavior doesn't establish the accusation being made about his proposal.
Working the answers
- A
We aren't given a rule that guarantees adoption of ethical guidelines and then told that the same thing is required for adoption. The argument moves from Sigerson's conduct to a charge of dishonesty. This answer describes a different kind of reasoning.
- B
The author doesn't examine an argument Sigerson gives for the proposal and find its support inadequate. The criticism is about his past contributions. Calling the proposal dishonest also isn't the same as explicitly concluding that the city should reject it. B doesn't accurately describe the stated basis or conclusion.
- C
Other politicians might resist the proposal, but that wouldn't establish that Sigerson's proposal is dishonest. They could oppose an entirely sincere reform. Whether the proposal would pass is a separate issue from the charge the author makes.
- D
The author doesn't claim Sigerson is unfamiliar with these contributions. Quite the opposite: the evidence is that he's accepted them throughout his career. The criticism concerns what he has done, not an alleged lack of knowledge about the subject.
- ECorrect
This gives the future-looking reason his history doesn't settle the issue. The proposed guidelines would govern future conduct. Sigerson could sincerely want to stop a practice he previously participated in, including his own participation. The author treats his past behavior as though proposing a new rule were a claim that he had always followed it. A proposal for change makes no such claim.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.